WSB Trashing TECH RECRUITING

[AE 87]

Technically, this is true. Every university makes this statement and it is true for every one of them. What they are saying there is no artificial cut-off where they automatically reject your application if you score below "x". No university does that, because if you are the next Chopin or Mozart or Gaugin they will make an exception for you, no matter your test scores.

In practice, every school has scores as a litmus test, and if you score below certain range you had better be the next Mozart before they will look at you seriously. Being a 5 star WR is not quite the same as being the next Mozart, no matter what some fans might think.

I don't want to repeat what's been discussed previously. GT does assert minimum entrance requirements and must get exceptions for those that don't meet them. Stanford's admissions does not work this way. It's not the same at every school.

u may be technically correct.
But in the case of TOP WR 5* D Rob top recruit please explain why a sure admit to gt and not Stanford. (Must raise SAT).

I've speculated on this in another thread. Here, I was simply correcting the false assertion that Stanford's academic entrance requirements are hugher than GT's. Whatever the reason they told DRob a minimum SAT score, it was not because this is a university minimum so we can't extrapolate from it to university entrance requirements.

 

[Techster]

Technically, this is true. Every university makes this statement and it is true for every one of them. What they are saying there is no artificial cut-off where they automatically reject your application if you score below "x". No university does that, because if you are the next Chopin or Mozart or Gaugin they will make an exception for you, no matter your test scores.

In practice, every school has scores as a litmus test, and if you score below certain range you had better be the next Mozart before they will look at you seriously. Being a 5 star WR is not quite the same as being the next Mozart, no matter what some fans might think.

A lot of schools take the "holistic" approach to admissions where GPA and test scores are only considered just "part" of the acceptance process. Ivy League schools, and the a good majority of schools in that tier (like Stanford) have the same approach. What's telling is though they claim no "official" minimal admissions criteria, the profile of admitted students tells you that they actually DO have a "traditional" admissions process in terms of what they want in terms of GPA and test scores versus other acceptance models:

Stanford:
http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html

Harvard:
http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html

In terms of the academic profiles of SAs that Stanford signs, and I've pointed this out in another thread using several of their biggest signings and star SAs, they are not signing kids at the bottom of the academic barrel. So while the "official" stance is there's no minimal academic and test requirement, in practice, there actually is one.

 

[chewybaka]

People are citing our team ranking in the recruiting discussions (#68 on Rivals) yet if you watch the film and look at measureables please tell me how 2-star recruits Camp, Branch, Brashear, Hawking-Anderson, and Cooper (bigger than Klock with Klock-like film) are not 3-star recruits.

I like Lee's and Kerr's film as well but they are clearly project type kids who will need to develop, so 2-star seems appropriate.

I won't argue that the services ID the 5-star guys that stick out like sore thumbs. They also get a lot the 4-stars right. But when it comes down to distinguishing a 3 from a 2 don't believe what the services tell you. Seriously, go to hudl, check out the measureables and make a case for why the guys I cite above wouldn't be 3-star.

Since we graduate our guys and have small classes it's more appropriate to rank by stars/recruit. Guess what? If you give the 5 guys I mentioned above 3 stars as would be reasonable, then at 2.94 stars per recruit we come in at 40th, or 28 spots higher than where we currently sit.

Before you respond go watch the film and then watch some 2-star film and consider measureables and tell me if I'm not right.

I hope you are right...looks like a great bunch of kids this year...would be nice to sprinkle in a 4 and 5* or two for good measure!

 

[GTNavyNuke]

FWIW, i heard a CPJ soundbyte tonight where he talked about how he saw a stat that only 44% of players ranked 4 or 5 stars in high school ever start a game in college....

Interesting. The 44% who do are most of the difference makers?

Also, that is 44% who start, not who play if the stat is correct. It is misleading to talk about starts as opposed to playing. Looking at the top 10 recruiting classes this year, there most 4 &5 stars (Scout) any team got was 19 (we got 0) and the fewest was 13. (UGAg got only 15). There are only so many starting spots.

 

[TechTravis]

Interesting. The 44% who do are most of the difference makers?

Also, that is 44% who start, not who play if the stat is correct. It is misleading to talk about starts as opposed to playing. Looking at the top 10 recruiting classes this year, there most 4 &5 stars (Scout) any team got was 19 (we got 0) and the fewest was 13. (UGAg got only 15). There are only so many starting spots.

We got 2 according to the other sites, fyi. Scout lags behind those guys. But again, I don't believe in star rankings. I think we got some guys who will help right away, and a few projects.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

We got 2 according to the other sites, fyi. Scout lags behind those guys. But again, I don't believe in star rankings. I think we got some guys who will help right away, and a few projects.

I still believe that the star rankings are about 40% predictive. There is a lot else. But I'd much rather have had 11 Scout 4 & 5 stars than none.

In the end, it will be what it will be. Our guys will prepare/play hard and get better. They just start at a lower point.

I understand why 4 and 5 star kids want to go to a school to major in football.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Ok Here it is. I have finally figured out how we can easily fix our recruiting rankings.


All we have to do is allocate part of our recruiting budget to something a bit cheaper than recruiting nationally. All we have to do is buy a bunch of subscriptions to 247 and rivals. When they see the big subscription bump for GT we'll get more favorable results!

Genius.

 

[strong90]

A lot of schools take the "holistic" approach to admissions where GPA and test scores are only considered just "part" of the acceptance process. Ivy League schools, and the a good majority of schools in that tier (like Stanford) have the same approach. What's telling is though they claim no "official" minimal admissions criteria, the profile of admitted students tells you that they actually DO have a "traditional" admissions process in terms of what they want in terms of GPA and test scores versus other acceptance models:

Stanford:
http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html

Harvard:
http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html

In terms of the academic profiles of SAs that Stanford signs, and I've pointed this out in another thread using several of their biggest signings and star SAs, they are not signing kids at the bottom of the academic barrel. So while the "official" stance is there's no minimal academic and test requirement, in practice, there actually is one.

Stanford admissions profile for Freshman class who score < 600 on one or all sections of SAT:
Reading <600 is 4%
Writing <600 is 4%
Math <600 is 2%
IMO, there is more to this than his SAT score.

 

[strong90]

Stanford admissions profile for Freshman class who score < 600 on one or all sections of SAT:
Reading <600 is 4%
Writing <600 is 4%
Math <600 is 2%
IMO, there is more to this than his SAT score.

Oops. Meant to post in D-Rob thread.

 

[Techster]

Stanford admissions profile for Freshman class who score < 600 on one or all sections of SAT:
Reading <600 is 4%
Writing <600 is 4%
Math <600 is 2%
IMO, there is more to this than his SAT score.

Definitely. As is the case with the profiles of most college students applications.

But look at what you just wrote. 4%, 4%, 2%...so do the reverse math on that. 96% , 96%, and 98% are higher. Then you look at GPA. 3% are lower than 3.70GPA, but 97% are higher. Of those admitted (2,142), 3% of the admits (roughly 62 admits) had a GPA below 3.7.

The point is, yes, Stanford (and other schools like Harvard) want to say do not have any minimal requirements for admissions, but the evidence that they publish themselves tells us that they do have some form of minimal standards. Heck, look at this link:

http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/prepare.html

Sure, they don't require (wink, wink) applicants to take a certain amount of any course or level or classes, but they sure do suggest (wink, wink) you take the most challenging courses available to you. Otherwise, why outline the "suggested" courses? In terms "natural selection", if two students are equally gifted in something (say the piano, coding, or...you know, football...ahem), and one student's grade, test scores, and classes selection suggested he was just going through the motions, while the other student enrolled in the most rigorous classes available, had a high GPA and test scores....which one of the two students do you think would be admitted?

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Definitely. As is the case with the profiles of most college students applications.

But look at what you just wrote. 4%, 4%, 2%...so do the reverse math on that. 96% , 96%, and 98% are higher. Then you look at GPA. 3% are lower than 3.70GPA, but 97% are higher. Of those admitted (2,142), 3% of the admits (roughly 62 admits) had a GPA below 3.7.

The point is, yes, Stanford (and other schools like Harvard) want to say do not have any minimal requirements for admissions, but the evidence that they publish themselves tells us that they do have some form of minimal standards. Heck, look at this link:

http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/prepare.html

Sure, they don't require (wink, wink) applicants to take a certain amount of any course or level or classes, but they sure do suggest (wink, wink) you take the most challenging courses available to you. Otherwise, why outline the "suggested" courses? In terms "natural selection", if two students are equally gifted in something (say the piano, coding, or...you know, football...ahem), and one student's grade, test scores, and classes selection suggested he was just going through the motions, while the other student enrolled in the most rigorous classes available, had a high GPA and test scores....which one of the two students do you think would be admitted?

I agree with your post but as a Science Educator I cannot stand idly by and let you try to call that natural selection.

 

[Techster]

I agree with your post but as a Science Educator I cannot stand idly by and let you try to call that natural selection.

Lol...sorry.

 

[AE 87]

Definitely. As is the case with the profiles of most college students applications.

But look at what you just wrote. 4%, 4%, 2%...so do the reverse math on that. 96% , 96%, and 98% are higher. Then you look at GPA. 3% are lower than 3.70GPA, but 97% are higher. Of those admitted (2,142), 3% of the admits (roughly 62 admits) had a GPA below 3.7.

The point is, yes, Stanford (and other schools like Harvard) want to say do not have any minimal requirements for admissions, but the evidence that they publish themselves tells us that they do have some form of minimal standards. Heck, look at this link:

http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/prepare.html

Sure, they don't require (wink, wink) applicants to take a certain amount of any course or level or classes, but they sure do suggest (wink, wink) you take the most challenging courses available to you. Otherwise, why outline the "suggested" courses? In terms "natural selection", if two students are equally gifted in something (say the piano, coding, or...you know, football...ahem), and one student's grade, test scores, and classes selection suggested he was just going through the motions, while the other student enrolled in the most rigorous classes available, had a high GPA and test scores....which one of the two students do you think would be admitted?

I agree with this. I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

I think the area which requires focus is not what happens when folks are "equally gifted" but when someone brings a significantly unique and needed set of skills. Then, the lack of minimum requirements allows Stanford to consider admission even if there's a lack in other areas.

 

[Techster]

I agree with this. I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

I think the area which requires focus is not what happens when folks are "equally gifted" but when someone brings a significantly unique and needed set of skills. Then, the lack of minimum requirements allows Stanford to consider admission even if there's a lack in other areas.

I don't disagree with that. Never have. The same thing happens at all schools.

But with respect to recruiting SAs, and I've pointed this out citing several examples of their top recruits and their top players, published records of their GPA and test scores indicate that the academic credentials of the SAs they sign are in the highest tier with respect to entrance requirements. My issue is with people who insinuate Stanford uses their "holistic" admissions to cull the SAs they don't want in favor of a more highly regarded player later in the recruiting process, or to *wink, wink* suggest Stanford is able to hide lower qualified SAs on the academic scale. To me it's disingenuous, and shows a lack of confidence in our staff's recruiting abilities. Demetris Robertson is a great litmus test for those who want to use the opaque Stanford admissions process as an argument of why Stanford could recruit better than GT.

 

[Skeptic]

Ok Here it is. I have finally figured out how we can easily fix our recruiting rankings.


All we have to do is allocate part of our recruiting budget to something a bit cheaper than recruiting nationally. All we have to do is buy a bunch of subscriptions to 247 and rivals. When they see the big subscription bump for GT we'll get more favorable results!

Genius.

All this kerfluffle over Tech recruiting and all the previously-unconsidered and never-heard-of suggestions for improvement by people like me, whose only experience with recruiting was the guy who promised me world travel then sent me to Wyoming, Japan and South Korea in the winter and Albuquerque and Johnston Island in the summer is like the guy doing weather: hang a string out the window and if it gets wet it is raining. p.s. it says something about my time that of them all Johnston was actually the best.

 

[AE 87]

I don't disagree with that. Never have. The same thing happens at all schools.

But with respect to recruiting SAs, and I've pointed this out citing several examples of their top recruits and their top players, published records of their GPA and test scores indicate that the academic credentials of the SAs they sign are in the highest tier with respect to entrance requirements. My issue is with people who insinuate Stanford uses their "holistic" admissions to cull the SAs they don't want in favor of a more highly regarded player later in the recruiting process, or to *wink, wink* suggest Stanford is able to hide lower qualified SAs on the academic scale. To me it's disingenuous, and shows a lack of confidence in our staff's recruiting abilities. Demetris Robertson is a great litmus test for those who want to use the opaque Stanford admissions process as an argument of why Stanford could recruit better than GT.

I don't follow. If you admit that their holistic process does allow admission of some SAs who're lesser qualified academically, how does citing examples of those who weren't lesser count as evidence that none are? Or what did I miss?

Also, how do you draw any conclusions about the two institutions based on one SA when we don't know if he'd be an exception for us, how many exceptions we've used this class or any comparable information about Stanford?

I'm not trying to make a point. I just didn't understand your post and would like clarification. Thanks.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Tangential story for you guys who aren't as plugged into high schools and Tech's perception.

Today after school let out I was in the parking lot directing traffic when a group of students walked by me to go to where they park. I was wearing a blue pullover with a small GT on the front. When this group passed one of the kids (whom I don't know) yelled his displeasure:

"EWWW GEORGIA TECH!"
(Being a teacher of course I responded with) "Whats wrong with the 7th best Public university in the nation?"
"I'm talking about sports!! BOO!"
"They won the Orange Bowl a year ago"
"YEA A YEAR AGO!"

He then was past earshot to continue yelling at me.

That stereotype GT is bad at sports is indoctrinated in at a young age and even with plenty of evidence against it (I mean UGA has won the Belk bowl and Tax Slayer bowl in that time frame. Wow.) they still hold onto the belief.

 

[Techster]

I don't follow. If you admit that their holistic process does allow admission of some SAs who're lesser qualified academically, how does citing examples of those who weren't lesser count as evidence that none are? Or what did I miss?

Also, how do you draw any conclusions about the two institutions based on one SA when we don't know if he'd be an exception for us, how many exceptions we've used this class or any comparable information about Stanford?

I'm not trying to make a point. I just didn't understand your post and would like clarification. Thanks.

Sorry if you don't follow, but it's quite clear what I'm saying. No one on here argues that Stanford (and other similar schools) doesn't have a concrete, "line in the sand" approach to admissions. Who's not conceding that point? Some on here, ahem, insinuate that because they slap the words "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements" on their website, it means Stanford is free to take liberties in letting whom they see fit in, and they can hide behind those opaque "standards".

Which leads to my point. Just because you read the words "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements" on their website, doesn't mean that in practice (you know, the "real" world) they're letting in kids who can barely function in a classroom just so their defensive line has a 5 star stud chasing the QB. Here's the thing about examples I cite, since you seem to think they're pointless in this discussion. If someone, ahem, insinuates that Stanford is hiding behind "no admissions requirements", I would want to see examples that Stanford is in fact using that to their advantage. In fact, after researching and citing those examples, I could not find one instance that supports the claims (expressed or insinuated) that Stanford practices disingenuous standards for athletes. Maybe it's just my silly standards, but I need facts and evidence if you want me to believe in something.

If you don't think facts and examples are important to support claims, I apologize then. Maybe it's just me, but just because a website says "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements", doesn't mean in practice that's what they do...as the overwhelming evidence has shown.

That's the crux of why Stanford is even mentioned on this board. Why are we even mentioning Stanford in the first place? Because some want to insinuate "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements" as the reason they're outperforming GT on the field and in recruiting, while others point to Stanford and say "Why not GT?"

If you think the big picture in this discussion is secondary to words on a website that read "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements" and people shouldn't try to prove or disprove it...fine. That's not how I look at it, but everyone is free to think what they want.

 

[AE 87]

Sorry if you don't follow, but it's quite clear what I'm saying. No one on here argues that Stanford (and other similar schools) doesn't have a concrete, "line in the sand" approach to admissions. Who's not conceding that point? Some on here, ahem, insinuate that because they slap the words "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements" on their website, it means Stanford is free to take liberties in letting whom they see fit in, and they can hide behind those opaque "standards".

Which leads to my point. Just because you read the words "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements" on their website, doesn't mean that in practice (you know, the "real" world) they're letting in kids who can barely function in a classroom just so their defensive line has a 5 star stud chasing the QB. Here's the thing about examples I cite, since you seem to think they're pointless in this discussion. If someone, ahem, insinuates that Stanford is hiding behind "no admissions requirements", I would want to see examples that Stanford is in fact using that to their advantage. In fact, after researching and citing those examples, I could not find one instance that supports the claims (expressed or insinuated) that Stanford practices disingenuous standards for athletes. Maybe it's just my silly standards, but I need facts and evidence if you want me to believe in something.

If you don't think facts and examples are important to support claims, I apologize then. Maybe it's just me, but just because a website says "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements", doesn't mean in practice that's what they do...as the overwhelming evidence has shown.

That's the crux of why Stanford is even mentioned on this board. Why are we even mentioning Stanford in the first place? Because some want to insinuate "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements" as the reason they're outperforming GT on the field and in recruiting, while others point to Stanford and say "Why not GT?"

If you think the big picture in this discussion is secondary to words on a website that read "Stanford has no minimum admissions requirements" and people shouldn't try to prove or disprove it...fine. That's not how I look at it, but everyone is free to think what they want.

OK. I tried asking a respectful question and received snark and a misrepresentation of what I've been saying instead of an answer. In your spare time, you may want to look-up straw man fallacy and composition fallacy.

 

[alagold]

People are citing our team ranking in the recruiting discussions (#68 on Rivals) yet if you watch the film and look at measureables please tell me how 2-star recruits Camp, Branch, Brashear, Hawking-Anderson, and Cooper (bigger than Klock with Klock-like film) are not 3-star recruits.

I like Lee's and Kerr's film as well but they are clearly project type kids who will need to develop, so 2-star seems appropriate.

I won't argue that the services ID the 5-star guys that stick out like sore thumbs. They also get a lot the 4-stars right. But when it comes down to distinguishing a 3 from a 2 don't believe what the services tell you. Seriously, go to hudl, check out the measureables and make a case for why the guys I cite above wouldn't be 3-star.

Since we graduate our guys and have small classes it's more appropriate to rank by stars/recruit. Guess what? If you give the 5 guys I mentioned above 3 stars as would be reasonable, then at 2.94 stars per recruit we come in at 40th, or 28 spots higher than where we currently sit.

Before you respond go watch the film and then watch some 2-star film and consider measureables and tell me if I'm not right.

Inside,
yep, our recruit classes have usually been better on the field than in the rankings but mainly because they normally" show up".A lot of guys that sign in Feb are no-shows or disappear within a yr at a lot of schools- due to grade problems/misfits etc .Unfortunately we got hit bigtime by transfers in '13 class that ripped at least the depth from our DL for sure and maybe starters..With our thin numbers(not over-signing) this kind of thing kills us.

otoh--The other problem that you don't see so much on film is -size.In hi school it is not magnified like you see in college.They do look good on tape mostly (although the competition level isn't always known). We have generally small teams esp in the lines and esp on def. Having 280 lb OLs blocking 300+ guys .Or importantly the other way, our 240-280 lb DEs/DTs fighting 310+ lb OLs.It is not just bad luck that we have had little rush for years really including last yr -last in conference sacks- and not good on rushing def either.. Size plays big in recruiting and ranking these days maybe even beyond skills sometimes.